If 


^^ 


J.B,    Shearer 


The  Canon   of  Scripture 


^^ 


/r-v,--;^- 


W^l^: 


:;-^^    '^^, 


""may  26  1959    *' 

BS4G5 
555 


THE 


CANON  OFSCRIPTURE; 


IS  IT  DIVINELY  AUTHENTICATED.^ 


BY 

REV.  J.  B.  SHEARER,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 


THE 


I     MAR    4  1926 


CANON  ofSCRIPTURE; 


IS, IT  DIVINELY  AUTHENTICATED? 


BY 


REV.  J.  B.  SHEARER,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 


[Reprinted  from  The  Presbyterian  Quarterly,] 


Whittet  &  Shepperson,  Printers,  Cor.  ioth  and  Main  Streets. 
1893. 


u 


THE 

CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


Theeb  are  many  interesting  questions  concerning  the  Scriptures 
which  are  not  yet  answered ;  and  there  are  some  others,  not  yet 
formally  asked,  for  want  of  a  definite  sense  of  their  importance. 
If  all  could  be  answered  in  a  satisfactory  way  it  would  greatly 
simplify  Christian  apologetics,  and  supersede  much  hostile  criti- 
cism. It  has  been  long  a  matter  of  comment  that  most  of  the 
attacks  on  the  Scriptures  originate  either  in  ignorance  of  the 
matters  objected  to,  or  of  the  evidence  therefor,  or  in  a  misappre- 
hension of  some  important  principle  or  fact  on  which  the  author- 
ity of  the  Scriptures  hinges.  No  question  has  occupied  more  at- 
tention than  that  of  the  authority  of  the  Canon. 

By  Canon  we  mean  the  authoritative  list  of  books  in  our  Bible. 
Such  questions  as  these  have  given  much  trouble :  Why  does  the 
Canon  include  certain  books  and  exclude  others?  "  How  do  we 
know  that  all  the  books  have  been  included  or  excluded  that 
ought  to  have  been  ?  Did  the  list  of  books  need  an  inspired  au- 
thentication as  well  as  the  books  themselves  ? 

Various  answers  have  been  given  to  the  trend  of  these  ques- 
tions. The  Papist  claims  the  obvious  necessity  for  a  divine  au- 
thentication of  the  Canon.  He  finds  it  in  the  claimed  infallibility 
of  "  Mother  Church,"  in  the  exercise  of  which  she  includes  in  her 
list  certain  books  which  Protestants  reject  as  spurious.  She  charges 
Protestants  with  rejecting  these  on  purely  rationalistic  grounds, 
on  a  mere  criticism  of  their  contents.  She  says  that  if  we  reject 
the  infallibility  of  her  councils  there  is  left  us  no  authoritative 
Canon.  The  Higher  Criticism,  in  minimizing  the  miraculous,  and 
in  reducing  inspiration  to  a  higher  action  of  merely  human  facul- 
ties, finds  the  criterion  of  all  truth  in  Christian  consciousness  dis- 
cerning truth  as  its  own  sole  witness.  This  most  refined  form  of 
rationalism  finds  some  truth  everywhere,  both  inside  and  outside 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  makes  the  question  of  canonical  authority 


4  THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

of  little  moment.  It  dismisses  Papist  and  Protestant  alike  as 
worshippers  of  a  kind  of  fetish  called  the  Canon. 

It  is  not  now  the  purpose  to  give  these  critics  more  than  a 
passing  notice,  and  such  incidental  refutation  as  may  follow  from 
an  attempt  to  set  up  the  truth.  Nor  is  it  our  purpose  to  make 
formal  reply  to  the  Papist,  for  he  seems  to  us  to  be  right  in  his 
fundamental  proposition  that  the  Canon  needs  divine  autlientica- 
tion.     His  mistake  is  in  lodging  it  in  the  infallibility  of  his  church. 

We  are  concerned  with  the  Protestants'  view.  They  believe  in 
canonical  authority  for  each  and  every  book  in  the  sacred  volume 
as  received.  They  hold  this  view  in  the  full  exercise  of  the  right 
of  private  judgment  as  against  the  claims  of  popes  and  councils. 
But  how  do  we  reach  it? 

We  get  it  first  by  tradition  and  by  authority,  just  as  we  do  the 
most  of  our  knowledge  before  we  begin  to  verify  for  ourselves 
Tradition  gives  presumptive  and  prescriptive  autliority,  even 
though  we  do  not  accept  it  as  final,  as  does  the  prelatist.  When 
we  wish  further  confirmation  we  usually  discuss  the  claims  of  the 
several  books  themselves,  the  external  and  the  internal  evidence 
of  their  genuineness  and  authenticity,  both  separately  and  as 
parts  of  a  whole.  And  as  believers,  we  rely  on  the  self-evidenc- 
ing power  of  the  Spirit  operating  in  our  hearts  through  the  truth 
and  giving  us  what  is  aptly  termed  spiritual  discernment.  This 
last  is  the  beginning  and  the  end  with  most  minds,  and  ought  so 
to  be,  for  it  is  an  experimental  knowledge  of  God  and  truth.  A 
believer  might,  however,  attain  this  from  having  seen  and  read 
one  single  gospel  or  epistle,  or  even  from  having  heard  one  single 
sermon  with  no  knowledge  of  the  Canon  as  such.  Many  books  of 
the  Bible  set  up  no  special  claim  to  canonical  authority,  such  as 
Esther  and  Ruth.  Is  the  Canon  to  be  settled  only  by  an  exami- 
nation of  the  inspiration  of  each  several  book  ?  And  if  we  could 
Dy  examination  determine  the  inspiration  of  any  book,  have  we  a 
right  to  assume  that  every  inspired  book  belongs  in  the  Canon  and 
was  enrolled  therein  ?  Our  writers  have  realized  the  difiiculty  of 
a  final  argument"  from  this  source.  They  have,  therefore,  sought 
to  set  up  the  Old  Testament  Canon  on  the  authority  of  the  New. 
Nor  is  there  any  question  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  do  give  the 


THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


most  abundant  and  satisfying  testimony  to  the  exact  Canon  as  it 
stands  to-day.  Uninspired  authors  do  the  same,  but  not  in  a  way 
so  satisfying  to  the  believer  in  both  Testaments. 

Having  accepted  the  Old  Testament  Canon  on  the  authority  of 
the  New,  it  becomes  necessary  to  vindicate  the  New,  else  both 
are  put  into  the  same  jeopardy,  unless  we  accept  as  final  and  satis- 
factory the  usual  argument  from  tradition  confirmed  as  already 
outlined.  Tlie  same  instinct  that  seeks  divine  authentication  in 
one  case  craves  it  also  in  the  otlier.  Does  the  authority  of  the 
whole  Canon  depend  on  a  sound  induction  of  particulars,  and  has 
such  induction  been  exhaustive  both  by  comprehension  and  by  ex- 
clusion ? 

The  more  we  look  at  this  matter,  the  more  we  feel  the  need  of 
an  attested  Canon,  carrying  with  it  the  same  authority  as  a  list  of 
books  that  we  claim  for  their  contents  if  they  belong  to  it. 

It  does  not  seem  final  and  sufficient  to  rest  the  Old  Testament 
Canon  on  the  references  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  for  they  do 
not  so  rest  it.  They  found  that  Canon  in  existence  as  an  author- 
ized Canon,  settled  as  against  the  Samaritans,  who  accepted  only 
the  first  five  books,  and  as  against  the  earlier  Sadducees,  who  re- 
jected the  later  prophets.  The  question  therefore  recurs :  On  what 
authority  did  the  Jews  the  world  over  accept  it  as  complete  and 
authoritative  ?  Such  authority,  if  they  had  it,  would  amply  justify 
Christ  and  his  apostles  in  bringing  all  tlieir  claims  and  teachings 
to  the  test  of  its  contents.  An  appeal  to  it  was  a  final  appeal  to 
divine  authority  itself  divinely  attested. 

The  Old  Testament  Canon  was  settled  during  the  intermediate 
],eriod  between  Malachi  and  Christ.  If  it  be  true,  as  is  commonly 
stated,  that  the  Jews  were  without  prophet  or  oracle  during  that 
period,  then  the  Canon  could  not  have  had  more  than  the  human 
autliority  of  those  who  settled  it.  If,  however,  it  can  be  bhown 
that  there  was  prophet  and  oracle  during  that  period,  then  it  may 
be  possible  to  connect  the  settling  of  the  Canon  with  them  in  such 
a  way  as  to  find  a  divine  authentication.  To  this  new  question 
let  us  therefore  address  ourselves: 

1.  The  civil  government  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  was  a 
theocracy,  in  whic-h  the  Lord  Jehovah  was  the  civil  liead  or  king. 


b  THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

The  human  head,  whether  judge,  king,  or  governor,  was  his  vice- 
roy who  ruled  in  his  name  and  by  his  authority.  The  organ  of 
communication  between  the  king  and  his  viceroy  was  prophet  and 
oracle.  The  prophet  was  a  civil  functionary  as  well  as  a  religious 
teacher.  The  oracle  was  limited  to  the  high  priest,  and  belonged 
to  him  by  virtue  of  his  office,  as  will  be  shown  presently.  If  we 
are  right  in  claiming,  as  all  the  authorities  do,  that  the  theocracy 
continued  from  its  institution  at  Mount  Sinai  to  the  coming  of 
Christ,  with  a  claimed  interregnum  during  the  period  of  the 
kingdom  (which  is  hardly  probable),  then  the  prophet  or  oracle,  or 
both,  were  a  necessity.  A  means  of  inter-communication  is  an  es- 
sential feature  of  a  theocracy.  Pagan  theocracies  had  their  oracles. 
The  Papacy,  which  claims  to  be  a  theocracy,  has  been  consistent 
in  claiming  infallibility.  We  thus  have  an  a  priori  argument  for 
the  existence  of  prophet  and  oracle  down  to  the  time  of  Christ, 
which  at  least  raises  a  presumption  in  its  favor  sufficient  to  throw 
the  burden  of  proof  on  him  who  denies  it. 

2.  When  Zacharias,  the  father  of  John  the  Baptist,  saw  the 
vision  while  ministering  in  tiie  temple,  and  afterwards  came  out 
and  "  could  not  speak  unto  them,"  the  people  "  perceived  that  he 
had  seen  a  vision  in  the  temple  ;  for  he  beckoned  unto  them 
and  remained  speechless."  Luke  tells  the  story  so  simply  that 
we  are  constrained  to  conclude  that  the  people  were  no  strangers 
to  such  marvels.  We  need  hardly  quote  the  matter  of  fact  way 
in  which  Mary  received  her  vision,  nor  the  recorded  Inspiration 
and  prophecies  of  Mary,  of  Elizabetli,  and  of  Zacharias,  given 
before  Christ  was  born,  because  plausible  exception  miglit  be 
taken  to  the  fairness  of  their  citation  in  this  connection. 

3.  There  are  two  cases  nmch  more  to  the  point,  Anna  and 
Simeon.  Anna,  the  prophetess,  a  "  widow  of  fourscore  years, 
which  departed  not  from  the  temple,  but  served  God  with  fastings 
and  prayers  night  and  day,"  was  only  exercising  her  prophetic 
function  when  she  saw  the  Babe,  and  "  spake  of  him  to  all  them 
that  looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem." 

Simeon  was  "just  and  devout,  waiting  for  the  consolation  of 
Israel;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  was  upon  him,  and  it  was  revealed 
unto  him  by  the  Ploly  Ghost  that  he  should  not  see  death  before 


THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTUKE.  7 

be  had  seen  the  Lord's  Christ."     There  is  no  need  to  quote  his 
beautiful  prophecies. 

Now  both  these,  Anna  and  Simeon,  date  many  years  back  into 
the  intermediate  period  uf  which  it  is  claimed,  "  they  had  neither 
propliet  nor  oracle,"  and  cannot  in  any  sense  be  called  a  part  of  a 
new  dispensation. 

4.  Josephiis  makes  mention  of  two  prophets  who  lived  half  a 
century  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  Simeon  or  Pollio,  and  Sameas, 
his  colleague.  The  former  is  supposed  to  be  the  father  of  the 
Simeon  mentioned  in  Luke.  Pollio  and  Sameas  were  president  and 
vice-president  of  the  great  Sanhedrim,  and  also  of  the  great  uni- 
versity at  Jerusalem,  and  were  the  most  learned  and  influential  of 
all  the  Jewish  doctors.  Josephus  not  only  tells  us  that  they  were 
prophets,  but  he  also  gives  some  of  their  prophecies  and  their  ful- 
filment, admixed  with  no  puerilities.  Why  need  we  reject  or 
even  suspect  his  story  when  we  find  the  cases  of  Anna  and 
Simeon,  belonging  to  substantially  the  same  period,  attested  by 
the  inspired  historian  ?  The  critic  complains  that  there  is  no  pro- 
fane testimony  to  the  Scripture  prophet,  and  when  we  cite  this 
testimony  of  Josephus,  he  flippantly  rejects  the  whole  because,  for- 
sooth, Josephus  played  the  sycophant  to  the  victorious  Romans  in 
his  history  of  the  Jewish  wars.  Away  with  such  destructive 
criticism. 

5.  The  crowning  fact,  however,  is  found  in  the  eleventh  chap- 
ter of  John.  In  that  last  council  of  chief  priests  and  Phari- 
sees, in  which  it  was  decided  to  compass  the  death  of  Jesus,  the 
leading  argument  was  made  by  Caiaphas  in  these  words :  "  Ye 
fools,  ye  know  nothing  at  all,  nor  consider  that  it  is  expedient  for  us 
that  one  man  die  for  the  people,  and  not  that  the  whole  nation 
perish."  The  Evangelist  in  commenting  on  this  says,  "This  he 
spake  not  of  himself ;  but,  being  high  priest  that  year,  he  prophe- 
sied that  Jesus  should  die  for  that  nation."  In  other  words,  he 
prophesied  by  virtue  of  his  oflSce  as  high  priest.  John  evidently 
knew  that  the  oracle  belonged  to  the  high  priest  by  virtue  of  his 
ofiice,  even  though  the  office  had  been  made  venal  by  the  Eomans, 
and  degraded  to  an  annual  appointment.  Note  also  the  remainder 
of  the  prophecy,  "  And  not  for  that  nation  only,  but  that  also  he 


THK  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


should  gather  together  in  one  the  children  of  God  that  were 
scattered  abroad."  The  j&rst  part  of  the  prophecy  he  used  in  its 
literal  terms  in  furtherance  of  their  malicious  purposes;  the 
last  and  more  glorious  part  he  could  neither  comprehend  nor  use. 
We  have  here  a  case  like  Balaam's,  officially  true,  personally  cor- 
rupt. The  office  of  Caiaphas,  and  his  prophecy  as  high  priest 
belong  without  question  to  the  theocracy  and  not  to  a  new  dis- 
pensation. 

6.  There  is  one  parallel  fact  wliich  bears  distinctly  on  these  in- 
terpretations by  way  of  corroboration.  God  did  not  leave  his 
people  without  miracles  of  power  as  well  as  ofi  knowledge  for  a 
testimony  during  the  intermediate  period.  John  tells  us  of  this 
also  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  Gospel:  "  Now  there  is  at  Jerusalem 
by  the  sheep  market  a  pool,  which  is  called  in  the  Hebrew  tongue 
Bethesda,  having  five  porches.  In  these  lay  a  great  multitude  of 
impotent  folk,  of  blind,  halt,  withered,  waiting  for  the  moving  of  the 
water."  The  new  version  puts  the  next  verse,  about  the  daily  visit  of 
the  angel  to  the  pool,  on  the  margin,  questioning  its  authority  ;  but 
the  material  facts  remain  the  same  if  this  verse  be  rejected  alto- 
gether on  what  many  regard  as  insufficient  grounds.  The 
story  is  familiar.  This  sanitarium,  so  aptly  named  Bethesda, 
"House of  Mercy,"  was  an  old  institution  at  Jerusalem.  The  five 
porches  and  the  multitude  of  sick  folk,  and  the  Sabbath  visits  of 
numerous  friends  on  errands  of  mercy,  were  all  a  Jewish  product, 
and  the  cures  were  miracles  of  power,  or  were  nothing.  John 
evidently  believed  in  the  whole,  but  mentions  it  only  incidentally, 
not  so  much  to  give  an  account  of  the  pool  and  its  cures,  as  to  tell 
of  the  malignity  excited  against  the  Master  for  healing  on  the 
Sabbath  day  the  impotent  man  who  had  so  long  been  unable  to 
avail  himself  of  the  God-given  cure.  Such  incidental  mention 
rather  strengthens  the  testimony  of  the  historian.  Much  hostile 
criticism  of  this  passage  gets  an  honest  backing  in  the  supposed 
necessity  of  eliminating  tlie  miraculous  from  this  period  of  the 
history.  The  facts  cited  all  reinforce  each  other,  and  disarm  such 
hostile  criticism  arising  from  such  pre-judgment.  Indeed,  there 
is  no  presumption  against  either  miracle  or  oracle  at  any  stage  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation.     Besides,  the  distinction  of  Jewish  and 


THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE.  9 

Christian  is  of  little  moment  in  this  connection,  for  Christianity  is 
only  the  culmination  of  Judaism  and  its  full  fruitage ;  and  all  the 
prophecy  and  miracle  connected  with  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  of 
his  forerunner,  John,  and  with  the  ministry  of  both,  are  in  their 
last  analysis  as  distinctly  a  part  of  Judaism  as  the  signs  and 
wonders  of  Sinai.  JSay  more,  the  last  tragedy,  in  which  they  slew 
their  King  on  Calvary,  closes  the  tlieocratic  covenant  set  up  at  Sinai; 
and  the  darkness,  the  quaking  earth,  the  rending  rocks,  the  open- 
ing graves,  and  the  veil  of  the  temple  rent  in  twain,  are  but  the 
fitting  counterparts  of  Sinai's  scenes. 

Let  us  return  to  the  question  of  the  Canon.  There  is  no  deny- 
ing that  it  was  settled  in  the  intermediate  period.  It  was  a  burn- 
ing question  in  its  day,  on  which  largely  turned  the  long  and  bitter 
feuds  of  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Samaritans.  It  is  fair  to 
assume  that  so  important  a  question  enlisted  the  best  talent,  the 
largest  learning,  and  the  highest  authority  to  be  found  among  the 
Jewish  people.  We  are,  therefore,  prepared  to  accept  the  substan- 
tial truth  of  the  Jewish  traditions,  which  tell  us  that  the  Canon 
was  the  special  care  of  what  they  call  the  Great  Synagogue,  for 
want  of  a  better  name,  consisting  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  men, 
beginning  with  Daniel,  the  prophet,  and  closing  with  Simon, 
the  just,  running  over  a  space  of  two  hundred  years,  and  includ- 
ing the  post-exilic  prophets  as  well  as  their  most  learned  doctors 
and  their  high  priests.  They  ascribe  much  work  to  Ezra  and  his 
associates,  and  much  also  to  the  last  on  the  list,  Simon,  the  just, 
whose  reputation  for  sanctity,  piety,  and  learning  seems  to  overtop 
all  the  rest,  himself  the  most  famous  high  priest  of  his  people,  to 
whom  also  l)elonged  the  oracle  l)y  virtue  of  his  office,  as  it  did  to 
all  his  predecessors.  It  is  significant  also  that  numerous  traditions 
and  fables  of  the  supernatural  cluster  around  his  memory. 

We  are  warranted  in  accepting  the  work  of  such  men,  itself  of 
such  gravity  and  perfected  in  such  conditions,  as  final  and  authori- 
tative. The  Jews  accepted  their  work  as  having  the  divine  iin- 
primatur  upon  it.  Not  only  are  the  presumptions  all  in  its  favor, 
but  the  evidence  is  all  concurrent.  Such  claims  are  paramount 
and  could  be  set  aside  only,  if  at  all,  by  the  most  overwhelming 
counter  testimony,  and  that  indisputably  divine.     None  were  left 


10  THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

to  question  the  anthoritj  of  the  completed  Canon  except  the  out- 
side Samaritan,  whose  voice  was  no  longer  heard  and  to  whom 
Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Simon  were  a  rejected  tribunal. 

Starting  on  this  impregnable  foundation  of  divine  authority, 
Christ  and  his  apostles  enforced  their  claims  by  continuous  refer- 
ence to  "Moses  and  the  prophets,"  with  the  superadded  infallible 
witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  signs  and  wonders  following.  The 
authority  of  that  Canon  was  so  well  attested  that  Father  Abraham 
can  say  to  the  rich  man  in  torment,  "If  they  believe  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose 
from  the  dead." 

The  heresies  of  Christ's  day  did  not  attack  tiie  canonical  au- 
thority of  a  single  book  on  the  list.  That  had  been  settled  beyond 
all  cavil;  they  rather  perverted,  and  nullitied  certain  Scripture 
teachings.  Here,  in  part,  originated  the  necessity  for  those  addi- 
tions to  the  canon  which  we  call  the  New  Testament.  Just  here 
also  we  may  discover  the  necessity  for  the  wondrous  miracles  of 
that  generation. 

The  miracle,  in  its.  last  analysis,  is  the  prophet's  testimonials,  God 
on  the  witness-stand  along  side  of  his  servants  guaranteeing  their 
claims  and  avouching  their  teachings.  The  numerous  miracles  of 
Christ  served  this  purpose :  "  Believe  me  for  the  works'  sake " ; 
every  word  was  established  by  triple  testimony  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.  Then  came  the  apostles  doing  "greater  works 
than  these,"  greater  certainly  in  their  number  and  variety,  and  in 
the  prodigious  number  of  miracle  workers,  every  one  of  whom  was 
a  proper  prophet  and  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher.  We  hardly 
realize  their  number.  Beginning  with  Pentecost,  the  most  ex- 
traordinary charisms  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  distributed  direct 
from  heaven  on  great  numbers,  as  also  on  Cornelius'  household. 
The  same  gifts  came  lavishly  on  all  on  whom  the  apostles  laid 
their  hands.  These  teachers  were  so  numerous  at  Corinth  that  it 
led  to  ambitious,  but  well-meant,  disorders. 

It  was  proper,  easy,  and  natural  that  the  writings  of  inspired 
teachers  should  be  received  as  of  equal  authority  with  their  oral 
teachings,  and  be  even  more  highly  prized  because  of  their  per- 
manent value.     The  church  in  the  first  century  of  its  existence 


THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE.  11 

was  practically  a  miracle-working  and  inspired  church.  One  of 
the  apostles  lived  till  the  close  of  the  first  century  in  the  full  ex- 
ercise of  his  faculties  and  his  office,  and  it  is  fair  to  presume  that 
some  on  whom  he  had  conferred  the  charisms  of  the  Spirit  lived 
until  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  that  multitudes  of 
competent  witnesses  who  had  seen  them  lived  to  a  much  later 
date.  The  gradual  disappearance  of  these  miraculous  gifts  must 
be  recognized  if  we  would  account  for  variant  and  semi-contradic- 
tory statements  of  later  uninspired  writers  when  referring  to  the 
continuance  of  miracles  in  the  early  church. 

The  question  now  recurs :  How  was  the  New  Testament  Canon 
settled  ?  On  what  principle  were  the  names  of  the  several  books 
enrolled  on  an  authoritative  list  ?  It  is  confessed  that  the  list  was 
perfected  and  promulgated  and  transmitted  by  uninspired  men 
sitting  in  council.  Did  they  sit  in  judgment  on  the  inspiration  of 
each  book,  and  pass  upon  it  as  an  original  question  ?  If  so,  their 
adjudication  was  only  a  matter  of  opinion  and  not  final,  and 
would  be  of  no  more  force  than  if  they  had  promulgated  the 
meaning  of  any  passage  of  Scripture.  The  best  human  opinions 
are  subject  to  revision,  and  often  need  it. 

Competent  human  testimony,  however,  is  final  as  to  questions 
of  fact,  Hume  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  It  is  here  that 
the  human  and  the  divine  meet  in  our  faith.  We  need  a  divine 
attestation  for  revelation,  and  we  rely  on  human  testimony  to  per- 
petuate the  facts  of  the  attestation,  and  here  our  faith  rests  secure. 

Now  the  acceptance  of  any  book  of  the  New  Testament  by  the 
church  of  the  first  century  and  the  early  part  of  the  second  as  au- 
thoritative is  sufficient  evidence  of  its  canonicity,  because  the 
early  church  was  for  all  practical  purposes  an  inspired  church,  and 
the  consensus  of  that  church  was  final  on  vital  matters.  This 
would  be  the  more  obvious  if  some  master  hand  would  discrimi- 
nate among  the  promises  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  his  infallil)le 
guidance,  and  show  just  how  many  of  them  were  limited  specifi- 
cally to  the  apostolic  church,  and  how  many  of  them  were  of  gen- 
eral application  to  the  end  of  time.  Such  a  discrimination  would 
be  of  great  value  to  settle  many  other  matters  that  still  need  elu- 
cidation, such  as  the   Papal   infallibility,   witness  of  the  Spirit, 


12  THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

higher  life,  faith  cure,  the  limitations  of  church  authority,  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  and  many  others. 

The  real  question  to  which  the  fathers  addressed  themselves 
was  this:  What  books  did  the  church  contemporary  with  the 
writers  receive  as  genuine  and  canonical  ?  This  question  they 
were  a1)undantly  competent  to  handle,  for  the  evidence  was  all 
accessible;  more  so,  however,  for  some  books  than  for  others,  as 
the  history  shows.  Some  of  the  books  were  written  earlier  and  had  a 
wider  publication  than  others.  The  acceptance  of  these,  of  course, 
was  the  promptest.  Others  were  not  accepted  universally  till  the 
facts  were  known.  It  is  true  also  that  some  of  tlie  books  were 
strenuously  objected  to.  This  goes  to  show  tliat  the}'-  were  wide 
awake  and  determined  to  sift  all  the  evidence  so  as  not  to  be  im- 
posed upon  by  candidates  for  canonization.  And  what  is  more  to 
the  point,  the  objections  raised  against  the  canonicity  of  certain 
books  were  based  on  their  internal  character  and  innate  difficulties, 
as  was  notably  the  case  with  the  Book  of  Revelation,  rather  than 
on  any  lack  of  evidence  as  to  authorship,  or  as  to  acceptance  by 
the  contemporary  church.  In  other  words,  the  objectors  sought 
to  parry  positive  evidence  by  arguments  purely  rationalistic,  a 
form  of  polemics  not  yet  obsolete. 

There  is  no  place  here  for  the  infallible  attestation  of 
"  Mother  Church  "  expressed  by  councils  or  otherwise,  nor  is  there 
any  need  of  it.  We  have  a  Canon,  both  the  Old  and  the  New, 
attested  by  those  who  were  as  competent  to  do  so  as  the  authors 
themselves  to  write  with  divine  authority.  We  depend  on  com- 
petent uninspired  testimony  to  bear  witness  to  the  fact  of  such 
attestation,  and  to  transmit  the  list  of  the  books  as  a  su!>stantial 
fact,  just  as  also  we  depend  on  testimony  for  the  contents  of  the 
books  themselves. 

The  case  before  us  may  not  be  made  out  as  lucidly  as  could 
be  desired,  nor  as  conclusively  as  may  be  possible  from  a  more 
careful  study  of  all  the  facts  bearing  on  the  question ;  still,  there 
is  no  other  hypothesis  that  satisfies  the  necessities  of  the  problem 
so  well.  The  Sacred  Book  furnishes  us  an  infallible  standard  of 
faith  and  practice.  Its  authority  must  rest  on  other  attestation 
than  itself,  and  as  infallible  as  itself ;  otherwise,  the  argument  be- 


THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE.  13 

comes  the  fallacy  of  reasoning  in  a  circle,  all  which  has  often  been 
shown  in  discussing  the  necessity  for  the  miraculous  in  attestation 
of  a  revelation  from  God.  God  has  never  left  divine  truth  as  its 
own  sufficient  witness. 

We  do  not  depreciate  the  value  of  special  evidence,  both  in- 
ternal and  external,  to  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  partic- 
ular books  of  the  Canon,  but  the  argment  is,  in  the  main,  only 
ancillary  and  confirmatory,  and  is  adapted  to  silence  the  caviller, 
or  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  the  doubter.  Such  arguments  con- 
firm a  claimed  authority,  but  do  not  lay  the  foundations  of  it. 

If  Christian  apologetics  shall  once  occupy  this  ground  of  a  eon- 
ceded  Canon  divinely  authenticated,  she  can  then  cry  with  Paul, 
"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,"  or  with  Christ,  "  It  is  written  " ; 
her  weapons  shall  be  offensive  instead  of  defensive ;  her  arrows 
shall  be  sharp  in  the  hearts  of  the  King's  enemies.  Modern  crit- 
icism, a  wild  and  careering  steed,  unmanaged  and  unmanageable, 
shall  then  be  broken  to  harness,  docile  as  any  cart-horse.  When 
genius,  and  faith,  and  critical  acumen  shall  work  together  to  deci- 
pher the  oracle  and  to  ascertain  what  is  written,  and  what  "  saith 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  then  shall  criticism  herself  use  her  weapons,  de- 
structive and  remorseless,  but  "mighty  through  God,"  for  the 
"  casting  down  of  strongholds,"  and  for  "  casting  down  imagina- 
tions and  every  high  thing  that  exalteth  itself  against  the  knowl- 
edge of  God,  and  bringing  every  thought  into  captivity  to  the 
obedience  of  Christ." 

Note. — The  Jewish  Synod  of  Jamnia,  about  A.  D.  70,  issued  an  authoritative 
list  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  This  list  is  claimed  to  be  the  same  as  that  recog- 
nized in  Christ's  day  and  subsequently  confirmed  by  Josephus.  The  action  of  this 
Synod  may  be  fairly  interpreted  as  declarative  against  certain  new  sects,  the  Erse- 
nes  and  Zealots,  as  well  as  against  Sadducees  and  Samaritans,  some  of  whom  made 
an  additional  plea  for  certain  apochryphal  books,  while  some  perhaps  objected  to 
including  any  but  the  five  books  of  Moses.  This  Council  did  not  make  the  list,  but 
vindicated  and  declared  it. 


.^^                             DATE  DUE 

mM    — --'^ 

mi^ 

M 

^^M 

^tI 

-»i 

^M 

i 

^ 

1 

^ 

M 

^i^l                GAYLCRD 

PRINTEDiNU.S   A. 

BS465  .S53 

The  canon  of  Scripture  :  is  it  divinely 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Librar; 


1    1012  00079  2723 


ny 


W  ^^^ks^^^l^- 


.-■^"" 


